1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

I am writing in support of site ref 178 being included as housing land within the list of Preferred Site Allocations 2018, with delivery from year 1. I note, however, that this site has again been linked with site ref 044 and would like to draw the distinction between the large development on the Ursuline School playing fields (site ref 044) and our own smaller area of land at Bishop Walk (site ref 178) and repeat that the two sites are separate and not linked in any way - each have their own merits and demerits. Together these sites are being recommended for housing, but with a qualifying note saying "potential option to utilise some of the land for expansion of the Endeavour School off Hogarth Avenue. The Endeavour School adjoins both sites. Bearing in mind that the Ursuline's land is surplus school playing fields, and the size of their proposed scheme has by far the greater impact, if there really is a local need for expansion of the Endeavour School (which is questionable) then rightfully the set-aside should come from their field (044) alone. The objection I have is that site 178 has never been public or educational land and so designating it "with a potential option" for some possible future school expansion would be a major departure. Planning and ownership negotiations would no doubt be long and protracted, leaving the whole site lying fallow for many years and blighted for housing development indefinitely. Fortunately, I understand the Ursuline charity are offering to provide sufficient educational land in their masterplan and so at this stage I would strongly urge that the qualification should only apply to their site, ref 044, and not ours as it is not necessary and could only hinder future housing provision on this land.

It is proposed that these two sites are accessed off Priests Lane with 'potential for secondary access via Bishop Walk'. A development of 95 new properties in this location will significantly increase the volume of traffic on Priests Lane which already suffers from a high level of congestion at peak hours. For example in the morning peak, during school term times, traffic queues back from Middleton Hall Lane all the way back to Bishop Walk and sometimes to the Glantham Road turning.
No mitigation is proposed in the draft plan and it is difficult to see how anything could be done to alleviate the problem through changes to the local road network.
The proposed main access shown in the draft plan has very difficult sight lines due to the existing road alignment in this location. There is no evidence to show that this access route could be designed to current highway standards.
The potential secondary access via Bishop Walk is wholly inappropriate,. Bishop Walk is a small cul-de-sac of just 6 houses. This small development has been designed for a cul-de-sac environment with the front facades of each house being located very close to the access road. Converting this to an access road for a development of 95 houses would seriously impact on the safety and amenity of the residents living there. Bishop Walk is effectively a single land road which is consistent with the cul-de-sac environment and is wholly inappropriate for a secondary access to these sites.

It is proposed that these two sites are accessed off Priests Lane with 'potential for secondary access via Bishop Walk'. A development of 95 new properties in this location will significantly increase the volume of traffic on Priests Lane which already suffers from a high level of congestion at peak hours. For example in the morning peak, during school term times, traffic queues back from Middleton Hall Lane all the way back to Bishop Walk and sometimes to the Glantham Road turning.
No mitigation is proposed in the draft plan and it is difficult to see how anything could be done to alleviate the problem through changes to the local road network.
The proposed main access shown in the draft plan has very difficult sight lines due to the existing road alignment in this location. There is no evidence to show that this access route could be designed to current highway standards.
The potential secondary access via Bishop Walk is wholly inappropriate,. Bishop Walk is a small cul-de-sac of just 6 houses. This small development has been designed for a cul-de-sac environment with the front facades of each house being located very close to the access road. Converting this to an access road for a development of 95 houses would seriously impact on the safety and amenity of the residents living there. Bishop Walk is effectively a single land road which is consistent with the cul-de-sac environment and is wholly inappropriate for a secondary access to these sites.

It is proposed that these two sites are accessed off Priests Lane with 'potential for secondary access via Bishop Walk'. A development of 95 new properties in this location will significantly increase the volume of traffic on Priests Lane which already suffers from a high level of congestion at peak hours. For example in the morning peak, during school term times, traffic queues back from Middleton Hall Lane all the way back to Bishop Walk and sometimes to the Glantham Road turning.
No mitigation is proposed in the draft plan and it is difficult to see how anything could be done to alleviate the problem through changes to the local road network.
The proposed main access shown in the draft plan has very difficult sight lines due to the existing road alignment in this location. There is no evidence to show that this access route could be designed to current highway standards.
The potential secondary access via Bishop Walk is wholly inappropriate,. Bishop Walk is a small cul-de-sac of just 6 houses. This small development has been designed for a cul-de-sac environment with the front facades of each house being located very close to the access road. Converting this to an access road for a development of 95 houses would seriously impact on the safety and amenity of the residents living there. Bishop Walk is effectively a single land road which is consistent with the cul-de-sac environment and is wholly inappropriate for a secondary access to these sites.

My objections to the proposals for the building of 95 dwellings on the sites Ref, 044 and 178 are:
1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

My objections to the proposals for the building of 95 dwellings on the sites Ref, 044 and 178 are:
1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

My objections to the proposals for the building of 95 dwellings on the sites Ref, 044 and 178 are:
1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.

Whilst I understand the need to plan for inevitable future development, the plan outlines a disproportionate impact on Shenfield area and further consideration is needed for the various infrastructure challenges which currently exist today. Figure 14 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the current local plan understates the impact as the 95 dwellings under consideration off of Priests Lane is not included, despite being in Shenfield. Therefore, whilst other areas, excluding Dunton Hills and West Horndon, generally are expected to have increase in dwellings around 10-20%, Shenfield is outlined to have an increase in dwellings of just under 50%, from 2,053 to 3,048, once corrected for suggested allocation of 95 dwellings off Priests Lane, Shenfield (044 & 178). The main concerns are school accessibility and impact on local traffic, which is already under pressure currently without an additional 50% in capacity to consider. The suggested plan doesn't appear to consider the impact on school accessibility adequately. From primary school perspective, a new primary school is considered to take the burden from sites 034, 087, 235, 276, 158 and 263, Hogarth School is listed as potential candidate to take the uplift from other "Old Shenfield" sites, under 311 (Crescent Drive), 044 and 178 (Priests Lane). These sites have combined dwelling allocation of 55 + 95 = 150, yet the forecast excess capacity for Hogarth School is 61 places across all school years. This doesn't appear adequate. From a secondary school perspective, the plan doesn't outline a material impact. The majority of increase in capacity is expected to come from Shenfield High, from across a number of sites, not only those in the close vicinity. The total number of dwellings allocated to Shenfield High is 1,003 but doesn't include Site 263, which would be in the close vicinity of Shenfield High. This site has an allocated dwelling of 215. This site hasn't been assigned to any of the secondary schools so appears to be an omission which also needs to be considered. The total number of dwellings allocated to Shenfield High including Site 263 is therefore 1,218 plus % share from nearby villages. Excess capacity of 545 spaces doesn't seem adequate compared to the suggested increase in dwellings to be associated with Shenfield High. Linked to the school accessibility is the physical access routes and impact on local traffic. Starting with the primary school aspect in Shenfield, as mentioned above, any associated requirement for primary school places from sites 311 / 044 / 178 (Crescent Drive and Priests Lane) are expected to be allocated from capacity in Hogarth School. Access to Hogarth School from these sites is likely to be via Priest Lane into Shenfield Crescent. The local traffic in this area is already excessive and severe at peak times, as this area combines with a main route into Brentwood via Middleton Hall Road / Ingrave Road, as well as already being an access to route to Hogarth School and Brentwood School. An additional 150 dwellings in this vicinity would further exacerbate the existing severe traffic issues in this area. Moreover, Priest Lane, having expanded from being a country lane, is not well equipped for excessive traffic, being very narrow in places and without adequate pedestrian walkways in certain places and therefore doesn't seem appropriate to continue to increase traffic pressure here. From a secondary school perspective, as suggested by the number of sites which would be linked to secondary places at Shenfield High, it would appear that there is an expectation for further traffic coming from further afield, not just from those sites in the close vicinity to the school. Aside from increased traffic to and from Shenfield High, the vast number of suggested dwellings across Shenfield would no doubt have an impact on local traffic across Shenfield. Already, at peak times there are traffic challenges at a number of places across Shenfield: * Priests Lane junction with Middleton Hall Lane, as previously outlined. * Friars Avenue junction with Hutton Road * Hutton Road generally, by Shenfield Station * Hutton Road junction with Chelmsford Road * Chelmsford Road going into Brentwood. The above are main routes into / from Brentwood and would no doubt be impacted by the near 50% increase in dwellings outlined for Shenfield. From a personal perspective, living on Friars Avenue, I see the amount of vehicles which use Friars Avenue / Priests Lane as alternative route into / from Brentwood. I have concerns on the amount of increased traffic and the potential for further accidents as a result of increased local congestion. Overall I don't support the disproportional impact outlined for Shenfield.

I wish to voice my and my wife's objections to the Priests Lane Development of houses site 044 and 178.
My objection is based on transport bottleneck at junction of Priests Lane / Middleton Hall Lane and surrounding roads as it stands at the moment.
Adding a 95 further houses on this site is a ridiculous decision in an already congested area, especially at peak/rush hour times.
This is a green field site!! The only green field site in the plan.
Priests Lane is a link into Shenfield from the A127, and with a further 1000 houses on the Officer's Meadow site this will be much worse.
This road (Priests Lane) can not sustain the traffic flow at the moment, the state of the road is a mess, patched up in the short term, but never the less a congestion mess.

I wish to voice my and my wife's objections to the Priests Lane Development of houses site 044 and 178.
My objection is based on transport bottleneck at junction of Priests Lane / Middleton Hall Lane and surrounding roads as it stands at the moment.
Adding a 95 further houses on this site is a ridiculous decision in an already congested area, especially at peak/rush hour times.
This is a green field site!! The only green field site in the plan.
Priests Lane is a link into Shenfield from the A127, and with a further 1000 houses on the Officer's Meadow site this will be much worse.
This road (Priests Lane) can not sustain the traffic flow at the moment, the state of the road is a mess, patched up in the short term, but never the less a congestion mess.

My original objections to the proposal to build 130 dwellings on the sites 044 and 178 were submitted in March 2016 as below. Traffic concerns. Priests Lane already has serious traffic problems which would be made even worse by the proposed development .It is a narrow two lane road with a sharp bend at St. Andrews Place and several blind curves and it has to cope with a high density of traffic The problem is particularly acute in the mornings in term-time , when there is frequently a queue of cars between our house (No.61) and Middleton Hall Lane .The lane is already dangerous for cyclists because it is so narrow and is unsafe for pedestrians and mothers with buggies etc because of the lack of pavements on both sides ,which force them to cross the road, often on bends. The speeding traffic at off-peak times further increases the danger. I was reliably informed that, in the early 1970s, the Council turned down an application by Brentwood School to build six houses on their field at the top of Priests Lane because of traffic concerns and the problem has become substantially worse since then. Access to the site. The proposed access to the site is unclear but can only be via St. Andrews Place or Bishop Walk, which were both built as cul-de-sacs, or via the track at No.61a, Priests Lane which is almost opposite Glanthams Road and where visibility is poor. It is impossible to envisage another 130 cars joining the morning queue in Priests Lane at this point. Pollution. On 1/3/2016 a BBC news report identified this area as having illegally high NO2 readings and prior to that the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane had been identified as a pollution 'hotspot'. The problem would be seriously exacerbated by the exhaust emissions of many more cars, using this junction. This could be seriously harmful to the health of local residents. Local Services. The site is about one mile from Shenfield and Brentwood stations and their High Streets . There is no possibility of running a bus service along Priests lane because of its narrowness and as already stated, it is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. The local primary schools and Doctors' surgeries are already full and would be unable to accept the large number of extra residents. Surface flooding. Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding at times of heavy rainfall and the gardens adjacent to the proposed site can remain under water for days in wet winters due to very poor drainage of the clay- based ground. It is reported that when a previous development was under consideration, the plan was abandoned, as the site was deemed too wet. .The drainage would be made much worse by developing the site. Effect on visual amenity, character and appearance of surrounding area .These would all be unacceptably affected by the proposed development, contrary to the Council's Policy 6.3. The area is not densely developed but 130 houses, plus some unspecified recreational facility could only be accommodated by dense development . Effect on wild-life. The Council's policy 9.1e states that the council should be conserving and entertaining biodiversity and habitat. Muntjac deer, badgers, pheasants and many other birds frequently visit the gardens adjacent to the site and the development would be seriously unsympathetic to them. Updated objections ( March 2018) My original objections to the planned development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 have not lessened since the council reduced the planned number of dwellings from 130 to 95 ; in fact they have increased for the following main reasons : Traffic concerns. Development of sites such as Officers Meadow mean an additional 1000 houses in the Shenfield area alone and Priests Lane will be used by many of the occupants of these houses, as well the occupants of the dwellings proposed for sites 044 and 178, to access the A127, A128 and M25 as well as local facilities . The narrow, windy lane which is dangerous, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians would not be able to cope, especially in the morning rush hour. There would be no safe walking route to a Primary school. Site access. We are extremely concerned about the proposed site access immediately adjacent to our property (address) The visibility in the Brentwood direction from our drive is so poor because of bends in the road that we feel it is unsafe to pull across the road when setting off towards Shenfield and instead we go via Glanthams Road and Worrin Road. A queue of cars waiting to exit the development , immediately to our right, would obstruct visibility in the other direction The PLNRA document (2017) detailing the Association's objections to the Priests Lane development plans gives strong, evidence based reasons why that access does not meet visibility requirements and may fall significantly short of the regulatory requirements (Appendix 2 pages 44-56) The visibility from Bishop Walk, the potential secondary access point, is better but the road is too narrow to service a large development and congestion in Priests Lane would still be a major problem. General infra structure concerns. These are well listed in the PLNRA document which was sent to councillors last year. They are not properly addressed in the Brentwood Draft Local Plan : Preferred Site Allocations document (January 2018) Page 13 Para 28 'Secure the delivery of essential infrastructure including education, health, recreation and community facilities to support new development growth'. Evidence indicates that current health and education services do not have the capacity to meet demand and there is no evidence in the council plan that they will be delivered. Page 43 of the PLNRA document states sewerage in the area may already be exceeding capacity ( Sustainability Appraisal 2015) and in fact in November 2017 Priests Lane was closed for several days because the sewer had collapsed and had to be replaced . For those few days the lane had only the sort of traffic which it was originally designed for. My 2016 concerns about surface flooding still stand but there is no mention of that problem in the revised site assessment of sites 044/178 Loss of Protected Open Urban space - this is contrary to the council policy of enhancing green infrastructure.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built on the greenfield land space adjacent to Priests Lane.

Priests Lane is an extremely busy and also congested road especially at school and 'rush hour' time in the morning and evening peak. The road is narrow in places, restricted in width with numerous curves. There is frequent parking on the Brentwood part of the road in the direction from Friars Avenue both where parking restrictions are present and where there are cars, delivery vans and builders' vehicles frequently parked half on the pavement / road causing obstruction to pedestrian traffic trying to pass often alongside a front garden hedge or wall. (Little if any parking enforcement takes place as this is an everyday occurrence)

There have been numerous vehicle accidents where excessive speed has been a factor together combined with the restricted width of the road in places. The volume of vehicles and their speed vehicles can make accessing and exiting one's own driveway whether as a pedestrian or in a vehicle difficult with restricted sightlines. More housing and associated traffic movements will exacerbate this problem.

I believe all the intended access routes to the proposed development site have their shortcomings with two viz St. Andrews Place and Bishops Walk being on bends and the third being very close to Glanthams Road with vehicle movements in and out.

I have lived in Priests Lane for most of my life and am sure a better less intensive use could be made of this green open space land. I understand planning permission has previously been refused by the Council and don't agree that the space should now be put forward as part of the LDP. I and many others think it one of the least suitable proposed development sites as the neighbourhood will suffer detrimentally.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built on the greenfield land space adjacent to Priests Lane.

Priests Lane is an extremely busy and also congested road especially at school and 'rush hour' time in the morning and evening peak. The road is narrow in places, restricted in width with numerous curves. There is frequent parking on the Brentwood part of the road in the direction from Friars Avenue both where parking restrictions are present and where there are cars, delivery vans and builders' vehicles frequently parked half on the pavement / road causing obstruction to pedestrian traffic trying to pass often alongside a front garden hedge or wall. (Little if any parking enforcement takes place as this is an everyday occurrence)

There have been numerous vehicle accidents where excessive speed has been a factor together combined with the restricted width of the road in places. The volume of vehicles and their speed vehicles can make accessing and exiting one's own driveway whether as a pedestrian or in a vehicle difficult with restricted sightlines. More housing and associated traffic movements will exacerbate this problem.

I believe all the intended access routes to the proposed development site have their shortcomings with two viz St. Andrews Place and Bishops Walk being on bends and the third being very close to Glanthams Road with vehicle movements in and out.

I have lived in Priests Lane for most of my life and am sure a better less intensive use could be made of this green open space land. I understand planning permission has previously been refused by the Council and don't agree that the space should now be put forward as part of the LDP. I and many others think it one of the least suitable proposed development sites as the neighbourhood will suffer detrimentally.

Our house (location given). The traffic on the road during peak periods, such as school run, is so bad that many times I have difficulty getting off my drive onto the road, with the traffic queuing all the way from the high road, past the hospital to Middleton Road. By adding to this, the proposal to build 55 dwellings in Crescent Drive (which will probably represent more than 55 cars) presents a severe safety risk at peak times coupled with its potential disrupting affect for the hospital traffic. Similarly with Priest's Lane. The queues in the morning or evening trying to get out of, or into, respectively, the road are horrendous, particularly so at the Brentwood School end but also seriously affecting the junction with the Ingrave Road, which you can see from your offices! Similarly with the Shenfield Station end where it joins the main road as Friars Avenue and causes disruption because of the continuous queuing along the main road, past the station. Brentwood and Shenfield both have significant parking problems with existing traffic, with particularly severe issues at peak times. To build without significant investment in the necessary infrastructure to cope with the inevitable consequences, such as traffic and parking, will destroy the nature of both towns. It will turn the towns into car parks! To put 7000 homes in the Brentwood and Shenfield area over 5 years, is a recipe for disaster. The simple logistics of building the houses will in itself cause the towns problems for 5 years. The traffic increase will keep the towns in permanent gridlock, increase the likelihood of accidents throughout the neighbourhoods and make the towns environmental disaster areas.

My concerns relate to the construction period of any development on these two contiguous sites. Any construction will significantly increase the amount of heavy goods traffic on Priests Lane which is inadequate at present for normal vehicle usage.

There are four existing problem areas in the section between Middleton Hall Lane and Friars Avenue, some part of which must be used for access to the sites. These are:
1 - The junction of Priests Lane, Wood Way and Friars Avenue, lines of sight are poor particularly when the sun is shining
2+3 - The road is narrow at the bottom of the hill and near the Brentwood School Playing Field. The width is insufficient for a central yellow line
4 - The bend by St Andrews Place has poor visibility and traffic turning in or out is at risk. It is surprising that there has been no serious accident at this junction.

It is noticeable that there is no public transport using Priests Lane reflecting these problems.

See attached.

I consider a smaller scale development is more appropriate than a large estate as a large one will create strain on infrastructure and impacts on traffic, road accidents and pollution.

I strongly object to the local plan because of: pollution from more vehicles; increase in congestion in Priests Lane, it can only get worse; its the only green field site in the area and should be kept; flood plain; it will be dire for residents, think of us. Leave alone. Look for more practical sites.

I strongly object to the local plan because of: pollution from more vehicles; increase in congestion in Priests Lane, it can only get worse; its the only green field site in the area and should be kept; flood plain; it will be dire for residents, think of us. Leave alone. Look for more practical sites.

I strongly object to the local plan because of: pollution from more vehicles; increase in congestion in Priests Lane, it can only get worse; its the only green field site in the area and should be kept; flood plain; it will be dire for residents, think of us. Leave alone. Look for more practical sites.

See attached.

I am surprised it is necessary for more letters of protest to be written but it seems that you still have not accepted the stupidity and lack of common sense behind the proposals for development at Priests Lane.
By allowing 95 new homes to be built on the site some additional 130-180 vehicles will need to be parked and will add to the already overcrowded roads in the Priests Lane area. The junction of Ingrave Road and Middleton Hall Lane is already overstretched at peak times and extra vehicles will make the junction unbearable.
There was an accident in Shenfield Crescent last week due to the heavy traffic collecting children from school, and more accidents can be expected putting the children's safety at risk.
On 5th March an emergency ambulance was called for a resident in Shenfield Crescent arriving at 3PM. Valuable time was lost as the ambulance was unable to leave for hospital because the road was totally blocked with school traffic.
With the additional residents how will the already overcrowded doctors surgeries and schools cope?
Surely by now you can see the stupidity of allowing further development in this area and reject this application?

I am surprised it is necessary for more letters of protest to be written but it seems that you still have not accepted the stupidity and lack of common sense behind the proposals for development at Priests Lane.
By allowing 95 new homes to be built on the site some additional 130-180 vehicles will need to be parked and will add to the already overcrowded roads in the Priests Lane area. The junction of Ingrave Road and Middleton Hall Lane is already overstretched at peak times and extra vehicles will make the junction unbearable.
There was an accident in Shenfield Crescent last week due to the heavy traffic collecting children from school, and more accidents can be expected putting the children's safety at risk.
On 5th March an emergency ambulance was called for a resident in Shenfield Crescent arriving at 3PM. Valuable time was lost as the ambulance was unable to leave for hospital because the road was totally blocked with school traffic.
With the additional residents how will the already overcrowded doctors surgeries and schools cope?
Surely by now you can see the stupidity of allowing further development in this area and reject this application?

I am surprised it is necessary for more letters of protest to be written but it seems that you still have not accepted the stupidity and lack of common sense behind the proposals for development at Priests Lane.
By allowing 95 new homes to be built on the site some additional 130-180 vehicles will need to be parked and will add to the already overcrowded roads in the Priests Lane area. The junction of Ingrave Road and Middleton Hall Lane is already overstretched at peak times and extra vehicles will make the junction unbearable.
There was an accident in Shenfield Crescent last week due to the heavy traffic collecting children from school, and more accidents can be expected putting the children's safety at risk.
On 5th March an emergency ambulance was called for a resident in Shenfield Crescent arriving at 3PM. Valuable time was lost as the ambulance was unable to leave for hospital because the road was totally blocked with school traffic.
With the additional residents how will the already overcrowded doctors surgeries and schools cope?
Surely by now you can see the stupidity of allowing further development in this area and reject this application?

I am surprised it is necessary for more letters of protest to be written but it seems that you still have not accepted the stupidity and lack of common sense behind the proposals for development at Priests Lane.
By allowing 95 new homes to be built on the site some additional 130-180 vehicles will need to be parked and will add to the already overcrowded roads in the Priests Lane area. The junction of Ingrave Road and Middleton Hall Lane is already overstretched at peak times and extra vehicles will make the junction unbearable.
There was an accident in Shenfield Crescent last week due to the heavy traffic collecting children from school, and more accidents can be expected putting the children's safety at risk.
On 5th March an emergency ambulance was called for a resident in Shenfield Crescent arriving at 3PM. Valuable time was lost as the ambulance was unable to leave for hospital because the road was totally blocked with school traffic.
With the additional residents how will the already overcrowded doctors surgeries and schools cope?
Surely by now you can see the stupidity of allowing further development in this area and reject this application?

I am surprised it is necessary for more letters of protest to be written but it seems that you still have not accepted the stupidity and lack of common sense behind the proposals for development at Priests Lane.
By allowing 95 new homes to be built on the site some additional 130-180 vehicles will need to be parked and will add to the already overcrowded roads in the Priests Lane area. The junction of Ingrave Road and Middleton Hall Lane is already overstretched at peak times and extra vehicles will make the junction unbearable.
There was an accident in Shenfield Crescent last week due to the heavy traffic collecting children from school, and more accidents can be expected putting the children's safety at risk.
On 5th March an emergency ambulance was called for a resident in Shenfield Crescent arriving at 3PM. Valuable time was lost as the ambulance was unable to leave for hospital because the road was totally blocked with school traffic.
With the additional residents how will the already overcrowded doctors surgeries and schools cope?
Surely by now you can see the stupidity of allowing further development in this area and reject this application?